IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 3 of C.P.C. must be satisfied, including the requirement that the right to relief must arise out of the same act or transaction and there must be a common question of law or fact. The court also emphasized the plaintiff's prerogative to choose and implead defendants in the suit against whom relief is sought.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the dismissal of an application filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board under Order 1 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the C.P.C.”) to implead it as the supplemental defendant in OS No. 72/2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala (for short, the trial court).

2. The 1st respondent, State of Kerala, filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents 2 to 5. In the plaint, the 1st respondent alleged that the plaint schedule properties belong to the State and that respondents 2, 4 and 5 illegally possess the same. Respondents 2, 4 and 5 filed written statements resisting the suit contending that the plaint schedule properties belong to the 2nd respondent trust and are in its exclusive possession and the 1st respondent does not have any title or possession over the same. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner Travancore Devaswom Board filed IA No. 30/2020 under Order 1 Rule 3 to implead it as the supplemental defendant. The trial court dismissed the application as per the impugned order holding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions mentioned in Order 1 Rule 3 of C.P.C. It is challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

3. I have heard Sri. G. Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Advocate General representing the State, Sri. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri. P. Haridas appearing for respondents 2, 4 and 5.

4. The application has been filed invoking Order 1 Rule 3 of C.P.C. According to the petitioner, a portion of the plaint schedule properties belongs to it and if the decree is granted in favour of the plaintiff/1st respondent, it will affect its right over the plaint schedule properties. It is also alleged that if a separate suit is instituted, a common question of law and facts would arise. Order 1 of C.P.C. deals with parties to suits. It contains provisions for addition, deletion and substitution of parties, joinder, misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. Rule 1 of Order 1 governs the joinder of plaintiffs, while Rule 3 governs the joinder of defendants. The underlying object of Rules 1 and 3 is to avoid multiplicity of suits. Rule 3 provides that all persons may be joined as defendants in a single suit where (a) any right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions, and (b) there is a common question of law of fact. The word “and” between clauses (a) and (b) makes it clear that both conditions must be satisfied before joining several persons as co-defendants in the same suit. The requirements in clause (a) and (b) are cumulative and not alternative. Two conditions must exist together. It is not necessary that all the defendants should be interested in all the reliefs, or that liability should be the same. However, there must be some common link or nexus so that conditions as to same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions may be satisfied.

5. The suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties was filed by the 1st respondent on the premises that the title of the plaint schedule properties vested with the State of Kerala and the respondents 2, 4 and 5 are in illegal occupation and possession of the same. The case of the petitioner is that it has title over a portion of the plaint schedule properties. The petitioner has absolutely no case that any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction is existing against it. As stated already, the provisions under Rule 3 of Order 1 would be attracted only when the right to relief against the defendants is said to be in respect of the same acts or transactions and common questions of law or facts would arise if separate suits were brought against them. The